Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended the Habeas Corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 1866 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ did not empower the President to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.

In the early 1870's, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

Just for the record, I don´t think Vietnam qualifies as a half assed job, and the israel/palistine conflict is really not a traditional war and and there is still nothing halfassed about the occupation of Palestine.

Vietnam was truely half-assed. There was not a committment to win that war. If Atilla was running it, then he would not have started it unless he was going to win it. To win it would have required nuclear or chemical warfare - he would have done it.

Well, we could argue this one forever. I see your point. Yes, Attila would simply have killed the lot and only attempted this when he knew he could take out absolutely everything in sight.

Anyways, seen from the Vietnamese point of view, too many died in this one to justify calling it halfassed._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

OT, but then possibly not.. fascism is interesting and it is sad that it is hard to discuss shades and strains.. as well as the origins of fascism in a relaxed way._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

i suppose lincoln was a facist....and fighting against the kkk is facist as well?

Seems to me any suspension of habeas corpus is consistent with fascism. I did not say it was sufficient to define fascism.

deknow wrote:

bachus,
can we please keep this civil?

About you I only asserted a desire to go pre-Magna Carter. I would have made the same acusation against Lincoln et al. Beyond that I only said such position "seems consistent with fascism." Any acceptance of suspension of habeas corpus moves a goverment in that very dangerous direction. You are free to advocate suspension, I am free to point out in which direction it moves a county.

There was no argument ad hominem.

Edit:

There wath a thpelling error and I wantd to be kiend_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy BenthamLast edited by bachus on Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Not even that I'm afraid, it seems to be more like "when you beat 'm hard enough you'll never know what useful info they'll come up with". When there is something serious against them trial those people, and if not release them. At the very least treat them with respect. And stop force feeding them._________________Jan

no, there is a big differance between citing "facism" as a concept and saying that:

Quote:

That sure seems consistent with my definition of fascist.

sorry, but i can't interpret that as anything but calling me a facist. if that isn't your intention, then you should watch what you say, and if it is, you should do so with some conviction rather than trying to beat around the bush (so to speak).

i don't think we really disagree here. in an ideal world, there wouldn't be war, terrorism, or suspending any rights (although i'm not sure what rights enemy combatants do or should have). we do not live in an ideal world, and there are always comprimises to be made in order for things to work. i'm not saying "don't question anything", and i (as when first posting on this thread) think that there are some big fundimental questions that society needs to address before we can address these kinds of issues effectively.

no, there is a big differance between citing "facism" as a concept and saying that:

Quote:

That sure seems consistent with my definition of fascist.

My apologies I shoulda cut and pasted.

I really dont' think you are a fascist. It is none the less true: "That sure seems consistent with my definition of fascist."_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

so only by viewing habaus corpus as 100% sacred one can avoid "appearing" facist? imho, this kind of rigidity (in government, or religion) is a weakness, not a strength.

i just don't see how this kind of absolute is sustainable in the real world. of course your position seems consistant with my definition of "tree hugging idealist with his head in the clouds and without the stones to discuss the core problems, but who would rather defer to npr than make his own arguments", but of course i would never call you that.

I agree with those who are concerned about the sustantial reduction of civil rights by governments who justify it as being part of a "war on terrorism". And I emphasize the plural on "governments". The situation within the European Union is detoriating as well.

Of course the Habeas Corpus issue is a fundamental thing but there seems to be a widespread reduction of "freedom". Let me give you an example: There are those guys, those railway fan addicts who are interested in all railway stuff. Who are hanging around on the tracks with their camera equippment to take those high quality pictures of the "The last one of the F-type Diesel engine hauling out heavy freight before retirement" kind.

Two of those guys were taken in by the police in the northeast of the US and interrogated for four hours and their equippment confiscated because they were regarded as suspects (Taking railroad pictures = possible search for terrorsit targets) and the Sheriff pointed out that taking those photographs is no longer acceptable.

That's a very minor detail but it points out a very fundamental issue: For centuries the basic attitude of the law system was to regard citizens as acting consistent with the law as long as they do not prove the opposite by breaking the law. One could argue when that changed 'cause the transition was and is smoothly and step by step. One could argue that changed 4 years ago, or 10 or 15. But nowadays the attitude is certainly that every citizen is suspectible of breaking the law at the very first place and he/she has to prove each and every minute that he/she does not break the law.

IMHO that's a very fundamental change in the relation between citizens and the law instances. The most fundamental change I can imagine.

One more thing:
I agree as well with those who argue that a war on terrorism can not be won by military action or law inforcement.

Everything can be a target and you can't simply protect everything. Some 4 years I argued with some friends of mine on the annoying restrictions in the airtravel system. My point was: "Had I been a terrorist would my target be that now heavily protected airtravel system? Come on, I certainly would plant my bomb where it's likely effective and much easier. I would plant it in a cross country train or subway train."

Some weeks later the bombs exploded in the trains in Spain and some months later in the London Tube. So let's protect all trains. Why not plant a bomb in the university? It's simply impossible to protect each and every public place.

But I certainly do not think that we have to live with terror acts. IMHO the only way to properly address terrorism is to simply deal with its causes. Why do those people have that hatred? Give them the opportunity to live their lives in dignity without being deprived and you will get rid of terrorist acts.

The "military option" George W. choose is the most stupid one. It makes the hatred grow and boosts the terrorism on the long run. And you have to put all rights in your own political system on stake.

Of course, if it's your hidden goal to get rid of the rights within your own political system and if you want to put the focus away of your political shortcomings and steer it to an alien enemy then it's not stupid at all but very well chosen.

Of course, if it's your hidden goal to get rid of the rights within your own political system and if you want to put the focus away of your political shortcomings and steer it to an alien enemy then it's not stupid at all but very well chosen. ;)

northstar

King George W I, sounds pretty good actually :-)

Funny thing is that this other George W, Washington namely, when offered, would not want to be a king, but a president rather - well that''s what I read lately.

IMHO the only way to properly address terrorism is to simply deal with its causes. Why do those people have that hatred? Give them the opportunity to live their lives in dignity without being deprived and you will get rid of terrorist acts.

I think that is dangerously naive. It's the traditional liberal reaction - if we would only treat people nicely, then they would be nice too. Poor people aren't responsible for crimes they commit because society is unjust. Islamic terrorism is just a natural and justified reaction to Christian and Jewish oppression. How come Israeli nationalism and militarism is not seen as the natural and justified reaction to centuries of persecution, hatred, bigotry, genocide, and terrorism? And don't forget, the Nazi movement was only the natural and justified reaction of the punitative and unjust Treaty of Paris that the Allies thrust on Germany at the end of WW1.

No, all people must be held responsible for their actions. But terrorism and militarism isn't very effective compared to Ghandi and Martin Luther King's non-violent resistance. That works. It's not a substitute for self defence, but is is much more effective than violent reaction and retaliation.

Of course, I'm not in favor of injustice and oppression, but hatred and violence are not the only ways to deal with it. In fact, they are the most counter productive and ineffective ways, and because of this they are not justifiable._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

It's the traditional liberal reaction - if we would only treat people nicely, then they would be nice too.

It would have given a better starting point then we now have though, but yes it's not the one and only thing.

I do agree with you on the personal responsibility thing, I'd like to completely agree with you on Ghandi and MLK as well - I'm not entirely sure here. But as long as possible we should (but I'm afraid we wont) follow their trails, keeps us from going in circles._________________Jan

so only by viewing habaus corpus as 100% sacred one can avoid "appearing" facist? imho, this kind of rigidity (in government, or religion) is a weakness, not a strength.

i just don't see how this kind of absolute is sustainable in the real world. of course your position seems consistant with my definition of "tree hugging idealist with his head in the clouds and without the stones to discuss the core problems, but who would rather defer to npr than make his own arguments", but of course i would never call you that.

deknow

The word “seems” places a statement in a context of subjective evaluation. There is no way another can logically analyze an assertion one makes about one’s internal states. My statement was really meant to make you think about that problem:

bachus wrote:

deknow wrote:

... based on the blurb you posted, the npr show seems to be about the prisoners at guantanamo, not habaus corpus.

Well I certainly can't think of anything to say in response to that.

deknow wrote:

... habeas corpus is undoubtedly important, but i don't see it as an absolute right that can never have restrictions under any circumstances.

Now I should have said. “It seems to me that that your analysis of the blurb is incorrect. Please explain your logic.” But I was aggravated by the vacuousness of your statement and gave a smart-ass shorthand quasi Socratic reply instead.

I hope that now makes every thing clear._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Now I should have said. “It seems to me that that your analysis of the blurb is incorrect. Please explain your logic.”

yeah, my brain _must_ be a vacccuum...i should have read the blurb more closely, and then i would have seen all of the referances to interviews with constitutional experts, judges, law enforcement and historians about habeus corpus....oh wait, the blurb said no such thing, it only mentioned interviewing former guantanamo detainees....and in all of this discussion (coming up on 3 pages now), despite my asking (see below...i pasted a few instances), no one (especially you) has pointed out even one other example (besides guantanamo) of a place where habeus corpus _might_ be being violated...certainly the npr blurb didn't.

explaining my logic:
uhhh, i read the blurb. it did talk about habeas corpus at first, but when describing the actual show, it said,

Quote:

At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that the prisoners should not be covered by habeas – or even by the Geneva Conventions – because they're the most fearsome terrorist enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes? Reporter Jack Hitt unveils everything we know about who these prisoners are. In interviews with two former detainees, he finds out the consequences of taking away habeas, for them and for us.

i haven't heard the show yet, and "this american life" often goes down some weird (and interesting) directions in telling a story. perhaps the blurb is an innaccurate description of the show, but it's what you gave us to start this conversation. i'm not sure how it could have been interpreted as a blurb about "habeus corpus issues" rather than "guantanamo".

i'm not really interested in having a fight, but at the same time i don't "love" being called a facist or vacuous. i love having civil discussions (and even arguments) even if they get a little heated, but to be honest, i can't be bothered if you refuse to read what the blurb that you posted says about the show it is promoting.
deknow

Quote:

Quote:

Bachus does of course not just think of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay but also the rights and privileges of the citizens of the US.

perhaps, but this was not part of what he posted starting this thread.

Quote:

what you posted (starting this thread) speaks solely about habeus corpus in relation to guantanamo prisoners.

Quote:

if this is about habeas corpus and _not_ releasing prisonsers in guantanamo, then perhaps it would be more clear if you would point out some non-guantanamo examples (the npr synopsis you posted certainly didn't).

Now I should have said. “It seems to me that that your analysis of the blurb is incorrect. Please explain your logic.”

yeah, my brain _must_ be a vacccuum...i should have read the blurb more closely, and then i would have seen all of the referances to interviews with constitutional experts, judges, law enforcement and historians about habeus corpus....oh wait, the blurb said no such thing, it only mentioned interviewing former guantanamo detainees....and in all of this discussion (coming up on 3 pages now), despite my asking (see below...i pasted a few instances), no one (especially you) has pointed out even one other example (besides guantanamo) of a place where habeus corpus _might_ be being violated...certainly the npr blurb didn't.

explaining my logic:
uhhh, i read the blurb. it did talk about habeas corpus at first, but when describing the actual show, it said,

Quote:

At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that the prisoners should not be covered by habeas – or even by the Geneva Conventions – because they're the most fearsome terrorist enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes? Reporter Jack Hitt unveils everything we know about who these prisoners are. In interviews with two former detainees, he finds out the consequences of taking away habeas, for them and for us.

i haven't heard the show yet, and "this american life" often goes down some weird (and interesting) directions in telling a story. perhaps the blurb is an innaccurate description of the show, but it's what you gave us to start this conversation. i'm not sure how it could have been interpreted as a blurb about "habeus corpus issues" rather than "guantanamo".

i'm not really interested in having a fight, but at the same time i don't "love" being called a facist or vacuous. i love having civil discussions (and even arguments) even if they get a little heated, but to be honest, i can't be bothered if you refuse to read what the blurb that you posted says about the show it is promoting.
deknow

Quote:

Quote:

Bachus does of course not just think of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay but also the rights and privileges of the citizens of the US.

perhaps, but this was not part of what he posted starting this thread.

Quote:

what you posted (starting this thread) speaks solely about habeus corpus in relation to guantanamo prisoners.

Quote:

if this is about habeas corpus and _not_ releasing prisonsers in guantanamo, then perhaps it would be more clear if you would point out some non-guantanamo examples (the npr synopsis you posted certainly didn't).

The blurb opening line:

Quote:

The right of habeas corpus has been a part of this country's legal tradition longer than we've actually been a country.

The sumation is:

Quote:

…he finds out the consequences of taking away habeas, for them and for us.

I.e. it uses Guantanimo during the period when the government had unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus as a concrete example with factual details that may be verified and examined. One can theorize all one wants about the value of habeas corpus in America but that tells you nothing about the reality of it. The concrete example at hand with its still living test subjects is the most important evidence that one can bring to bear on this.

Seems to me this is a convincing argument. But then I’ve actually listened to the show and have an attitude biased by an informed opinion about its content. Seems a waste of time debating a blurb.

I can’t find where I accused you of being either a fascist or vacuus

Edit:

Fixed bad url= expression_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Bachus and Deknow: please just let the flame war die, I hate to see this kind of behavior infiltrate the most civil and intelligent forum I've ever seen on the internet. You are both smart enough to know that neither of you can "win". This is all I'm going to say about it so please don't indulge any compulsion to pull me in also.

Regarding the topic - I agree with the liberal view. Reading the US news these days is like watching a coup in slow-motion. I expect the Bush administration to simply claim the title "Emp'r'r uv 'Merica" in 2008 and call off the elections.

I also agree that the problem is not that habeas has been suspended - the problem is that we were thrust into a situation where going against the principles of our society seemed like the best thing to do.

I can't decide if I think that situations like the one in question happen because the people in charge are:
a) Cautious to a fault, or
b) Megalomaniacal, or
c) Scared out of their minds because of all the things they know that we don't.

And, yes, this is only one example of countless and largely unnoticed soilings of varying degrees. That makes it too easy to be cynical and dismissive, though... and it's hard enough as it to transform societal dissent into political action. People like to bitch.

I also agree that the problem is not that habeas has been suspended - the problem is that we were thrust into a situation where going against the principles of our society seemed like the best thing to do.

Well, it may be nominally against the "principles" but it's most certainly not going gainst the habbits and traditions of the U.S. Have you forgotten the Japanese that were put in camps without trial for -get this- being Japanese?_________________Kassen

Japanese that were put in camps without trial for -get this- being Japanese?

Well, yes.. but there is still some sort of panicky war crazed logic about that one. Truly they didn´t put the japanese in camps for being martians?

Yet, I am not getting the logic behind making the poorer even poorer and developing the 3 strikes thingie in order to get the poor lowlifes in jail.

.. I could also mention health plans and the social security bit.. do I have too.. ?? _________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Japanese that were put in camps without trial for -get this- being Japanese?

Well, yes.. but there is still some sort of panicky war crazed logic about that one. Truly they didn´t put the japanese in camps for being martians?

Yet, I am not getting the logic behind making the poorer even poorer and developing the 3 strikes thingie in order to get the poor lowlifes in jail.

.. I could also mention health plans and the social security bit.. do I have too.. ??

Yeah, sure, but isn't there a panicky war crazed logic to the rest too?
By the time you can talk about a "war on drugs" with a straight face I think you are well into "panicky land". Normal people would go "ok , so we have a set of issues related to drugs", then analyse what the problem is what behaviour causes the problem and where that behaviour comes from as well as what might be done to prevent it. the U.S. declares war instead and now has one of the largest drug problems in the world.

If you remember Burrough's piece "just say no to drug hysteria"? There he describes it as "a war neither designed nor intended to be won". I think there are a lot of similarities between that and the U.S.-Japanese war. The U.S. didn't want to win that one either, they couldve easily but they drew it out in order to show off The Bomb.

I don't think the "three strikes" thing is about getting people "out" at all. In the U.S. prisons are proffitable private companies, modern slaves if you will, it's about getting them "in". I think that in the U.S. sending people to prison is as lucrative as sentencing them to death is in China where "death" is just a euphemism for sentencing people to organ donation. As far as keeping the flesh fresh freezers haven't got a thing on death row.

Bachus and Deknow: please just let the flame war die, I hate to see this kind of behavior infiltrate the most civil and intelligent forum I've ever seen on the internet.

I shall happily say no more

OK I lied, but I will say no more about the blurb and move to other subjects. I mean, if that’s all right with you kookoo. And please if I do start making you uncomfortable again, speak up and I'll try not to go too far outside the range of acceptable behavior. It is more difficult for me than you might think.

electro80 wrote:

Well, yes.. but there is still some sort of panicky war crazed logic about that one. Truly they didn´t put the japanese in camps for being martians?

"War crazed" is an excellent description and I do think the craziness has a chemical basis. The Japanese were genetically similar to the enemy and relatively dissimilar to us. OK, chemically speaking the dissimilarities are very subtle, but DNA is mindlessly and insatiably selfish. When a group of apes is stressed it has been an advantage to go out and kill the "neighbors," statistically speaking. This has turned out to be a fairly strong mechanism for selection for chimps and humans. OSISTM

To sum it up: The Japanese Americans should be grateful we just caged them and didn’t follow older “traditions” and simply beat them to death.

What a wonderful world

OK I lied again and did speak about war in general

[editor's note: removed an offensive (to me) term. --mosc]_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.